Good point. Most folks, including me, wants to be as close as possible, but I still prefer the beach to heal as nature intended. A huge task ahead for the state.
Led away in Handcuffs
- Thread starter rocket136
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Good point. Most folks, including me, wants to be as close as possible, but I still prefer the beach to heal as nature intended. A huge task ahead for the state.
RiverOtter
got any pics?
If sea level is rising then retreat will be the only option. You guys will know the answer to a question that came up in my office awhile ago. So, you can get insurance on the house but what about the property? What happens when all the property corners are now out in the water and the property is unusable therefore worthless? Is that a monetary loss or can insurance pay for the lost value? I realize that insurers will insure anything for enough money. If it exists is that kind of insurance common along the coast? To us inland folks the idea of land disappearing is alien so we didn't know the answer.
I see buying on the coast as similar to the risk/reward of buying stocks. In general your property goes up in value. Get lucky and mother nature accretes additional land to your property further increasing the value. Get unlucky and mother nature submerges your property in the ocean.
Our country was founded on the concept of property rights as well as civil disobedience. If the guy arrested last week for trespassing did it to make a point I say way to go fellow American. I also understand the concern property owners have for their property. I want to protect my property value as much as any coastal owner.
I am a whitewater kayaker who has seen the same battle between property owners along mountain streams with fishermen and whitewater boaters. The Earth is getting very small and we are starting to bump into each other with greater frequency.
I see buying on the coast as similar to the risk/reward of buying stocks. In general your property goes up in value. Get lucky and mother nature accretes additional land to your property further increasing the value. Get unlucky and mother nature submerges your property in the ocean.
Our country was founded on the concept of property rights as well as civil disobedience. If the guy arrested last week for trespassing did it to make a point I say way to go fellow American. I also understand the concern property owners have for their property. I want to protect my property value as much as any coastal owner.
I am a whitewater kayaker who has seen the same battle between property owners along mountain streams with fishermen and whitewater boaters. The Earth is getting very small and we are starting to bump into each other with greater frequency.
Insurance companies don't insure the land for value, only the structure for value. Land for liability.
LMAO at dental floss. That is all I have to say.
I read this entire thread with great interest as I own a house on Snapper St in Blue Mountain Beach set up as a short-term rental & I have some questions!!!!
I truly appreciate everyone's input & overall tone on this board- it's been great & I've really learned quite a lot about the area.
Here's my story..... I have had three different guests call me about the beach access/where to set up on the beach. The first was during Memorial Day weekend- the guest & his family were told they had to leave the beach by the rent-a-cop from the Retreat. The other two guests & their families were told they had to move closer to the water line - away from the private property of the Retreat & Inn at Blue Mountain. As a property owner, I have deeded beach access, I'm a member of the Bl Mtn Beach Homeowner's Assoc, and the Bl Mtn Beach Club. These guests are typical family oriented SoWal beach goers- small kids & teenagers and grandparents. Clearly, they were upset about this harassment & called me. I called the Sherrif's Dept & got a couple of different responses, .....so what should I tell my guests and who should I contact to complain????
One guest told me that he & his famliy had vacationed in the area for the past seven years, but that this trip was the last 11% tax he would pay to Walton Cty & FL.
I understand that part of the beach is private property, but to have their rent-a-cops harass revenue & tax paying guests is out of line!!
I'm certainly willing to join the crowd & help out in protest- I'm just not sure who or what to contact.
Thanks! Cobia Cottage
I truly appreciate everyone's input & overall tone on this board- it's been great & I've really learned quite a lot about the area.
Here's my story..... I have had three different guests call me about the beach access/where to set up on the beach. The first was during Memorial Day weekend- the guest & his family were told they had to leave the beach by the rent-a-cop from the Retreat. The other two guests & their families were told they had to move closer to the water line - away from the private property of the Retreat & Inn at Blue Mountain. As a property owner, I have deeded beach access, I'm a member of the Bl Mtn Beach Homeowner's Assoc, and the Bl Mtn Beach Club. These guests are typical family oriented SoWal beach goers- small kids & teenagers and grandparents. Clearly, they were upset about this harassment & called me. I called the Sherrif's Dept & got a couple of different responses, .....so what should I tell my guests and who should I contact to complain????
One guest told me that he & his famliy had vacationed in the area for the past seven years, but that this trip was the last 11% tax he would pay to Walton Cty & FL.
I understand that part of the beach is private property, but to have their rent-a-cops harass revenue & tax paying guests is out of line!!
I'm certainly willing to join the crowd & help out in protest- I'm just not sure who or what to contact.
Thanks! Cobia Cottage
You're correct. You haven't mixed Surfrider's "Beach Access Goals" with this thread. But as a very vocal proponent of Surfrider, I assumed there was a connection. I guess you're telling me that there is not. I can live with that if that's truly what you mean.
Interesting that this thread has somewhat gone off-topic with the beach renourishment issue...or has it?
Darwin, you are definitely asking ALL the right questions. Some are getting answered.
Beach restoration... why should the "public" pick up the tab for this? Well as Yippie correctly said, "If public money is used to renourish the beaches, then that part of the beach becomes public." A significant portion of the private beaches become public. You would think that a private property owner would be allowed to "pay" for their part of the beach nourishment and retain their property rights. But I don't believe this is the case. The answer to the question, why, is obvious.
I'm not going to debate the merits of renourishment but it sure seems to me a VERY CHEAP PRICE to pay to gain public access to the beaches compared to the outright purchase of beach front property.
Here's the point: the cost of beach renourishment is a small price to pay to rectify the screwed up beach access mess that Walton County has gotten ALL OF US in. And, it seems, they have made no attempt to truly change things - only make them worse by the unbelievable approval, as an example, of the Redfish Village private easement debacle which will eventually pour hundreds of people into an area the size of one single residential lot bordered on both sides by private property. They were well aware of this but approved it anyway. In Commissioner's Sara Comander's defense, she voted against it (Meadows was not present).
If they did not approve it, Redfish Village would have gone down in flames. The county bailed them out but at whose expense?
Darwin, I'm not familiar with the location where you had your bad experience. But the start of this thread had to do with someone being run off the beach in front of the Retreat. The people at the Retreat and the Inn at Blue Mountain Beach are going through a similar thing. That is, the county approved a public beach access with no "real" dedicated public beach on the other end.
The beach in front of the Inn at BMB is packed because of the very high density of that development for the associated beach frontage. They are in "survival mode". There is much more to this story at the Inn at BMB as many of you in the real estate business are aware of.
In my opinion, the people at the less dense Retreat do not feel they should pay for the lack of planning at the county level. If you paid a few million for your dream home on the beach, you might (just might) understand why they would want to protect their private property.
If you're familiar with the area, you know the pressure that all the development south and north of 30A in that immediate vicinity will put on that single beach access. Yet it keeps on growing and growing without regard to the beach as a finite resource, regardless of who owns it.
Bottom line, the Inn at BMB does not want any more people on their beach because they are getting too crowded as is, and the people at the Retreat do not want the bleedover from the Inn at BMB as well as the public access.
So the public is caught in the middle while all gulf front owners and sheriff's deputies are made out to be the bad guys.
Darwin, if anyone should be ranting and raving, it should be you. Thanks for the level headed, thought provoking posts.
Darwin, you are definitely asking ALL the right questions. Some are getting answered.
Beach restoration... why should the "public" pick up the tab for this? Well as Yippie correctly said, "If public money is used to renourish the beaches, then that part of the beach becomes public." A significant portion of the private beaches become public. You would think that a private property owner would be allowed to "pay" for their part of the beach nourishment and retain their property rights. But I don't believe this is the case. The answer to the question, why, is obvious.
I'm not going to debate the merits of renourishment but it sure seems to me a VERY CHEAP PRICE to pay to gain public access to the beaches compared to the outright purchase of beach front property.
Here's the point: the cost of beach renourishment is a small price to pay to rectify the screwed up beach access mess that Walton County has gotten ALL OF US in. And, it seems, they have made no attempt to truly change things - only make them worse by the unbelievable approval, as an example, of the Redfish Village private easement debacle which will eventually pour hundreds of people into an area the size of one single residential lot bordered on both sides by private property. They were well aware of this but approved it anyway. In Commissioner's Sara Comander's defense, she voted against it (Meadows was not present).
If they did not approve it, Redfish Village would have gone down in flames. The county bailed them out but at whose expense?
Darwin, I'm not familiar with the location where you had your bad experience. But the start of this thread had to do with someone being run off the beach in front of the Retreat. The people at the Retreat and the Inn at Blue Mountain Beach are going through a similar thing. That is, the county approved a public beach access with no "real" dedicated public beach on the other end.
The beach in front of the Inn at BMB is packed because of the very high density of that development for the associated beach frontage. They are in "survival mode". There is much more to this story at the Inn at BMB as many of you in the real estate business are aware of.
In my opinion, the people at the less dense Retreat do not feel they should pay for the lack of planning at the county level. If you paid a few million for your dream home on the beach, you might (just might) understand why they would want to protect their private property.
If you're familiar with the area, you know the pressure that all the development south and north of 30A in that immediate vicinity will put on that single beach access. Yet it keeps on growing and growing without regard to the beach as a finite resource, regardless of who owns it.
Bottom line, the Inn at BMB does not want any more people on their beach because they are getting too crowded as is, and the people at the Retreat do not want the bleedover from the Inn at BMB as well as the public access.
So the public is caught in the middle while all gulf front owners and sheriff's deputies are made out to be the bad guys.
Darwin, if anyone should be ranting and raving, it should be you. Thanks for the level headed, thought provoking posts.
Last edited:
Darwin, I owned river property in Telluride and my property line went 1/2 way from my shore to the opposite shore. I did not own the water flowing across it(another fight entirely; water rights). I would never try to prevent boaters or fishers from being on/in the water. Is that actually happening? where?
The Walton County website has the names and email addresses of the County Commissioners:
http://www.co.walton.fl.us
And the TDC should be interested in these matters:
http://www.beachesofsouthwalton.com/